If you read an interesting case/off - or have unique and good weighing you will get good speaks

General:

Email:Add taha.amir575@gmail.com

Defaults: I default to Drop the Argument, Competing Interps, and Yes RVIS - that can be changed with a word. (However please at least somewhat warrant your paradigm issues). I default to Util and the ROTB is “To vote for the better debater” unless otherwise said in round. Presumption/Permissibility flows neg. If I have to presume on value topics I will flip a coin and whoever wins the coinflip I vote for. If you think there's no offense in the round please make even one presumption warrant, I'll buy it.

General Thoughts on Debate:I think debate is a game and any argument and strategy is on the table as long as it is warranted. I will always be tech > truth. Although I prefer certain norms, nothing is absolute in the debate and if you want to change something about my paradigm - just warrant it.

Speed:Speak as fast as you want, but always send a doc with all your evidence prior to your speech. Slow down on analytics. I was a pretty fast debater so if I can usually follow along.

Substance:You need to extend your arguments in the summary and final focus, but my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, so good, intricate weighing is the best way to win my ballot. I loved reading extinction impacts, and my favorite debates was doing smart link weighing in extinction v. extinction debates. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

• Turns aren't defense, if you want me to vote for one, explain why your link is better than theirs.

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, I'll vote for dedev, spark, etc.

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.

Theory:Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K/K Aff:My thoughts on the K/K Aff. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a Role of the ballot. K affs need an advocacy if they're not advocating for the resolution. If that advocacy isn’t topical, T is a very good strategy against K affs, and I think its true. That doesn’t mean I’m not perceptive to K affs, just that if you hit one, read T. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative is.’

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

TLDR: If you read interesting contentions that aren't just a stretch of barely connected links you’ll strongly sway me towards higher speaks

1. send docs and marked docs before and after speeches (if going fast)

1. No doc and fast speeches mean I flow what I can hear, don't do this

2. I don't have much topic knowledge on the PF topic, go slow on tags, don't use acronyms, signpost and give me offtime roadmaps

3. Slow down on any analytics, rebuttals/summary/final focuses can be fast but intelligible, again, if you have messy and fast speaking I will flow what I can hear

4. I don't understand any PF specific arguments or norms - Err on overexplanation and warranting (ie why some norm isnt allowed in pf - I have no idea about existing norms)

About me:

Previously debated in Policy Debate, with some experience judging PF in practice debates, though I haven’t judged on tab before you can treat me as a tech or a lay. I'm going to be honest, I don't really care what kind of debate you go for, just decide with your opponents if you want to be fast or slow, tech debate or substance, but if you decide on any accommodations with your opponents that you want to make sure I know you have agreed on, let me know before the round.

Email: Add vanshu.angi@gmail.com

My default is Tech>>>Truth. I will listen to pretty much any argument as long as it has warranted and explained. Extensions are key; card names, warrants, links, and internal links are all necessary in the back half.

On speed, refer to what I said above, policy debate was always spreading oriented but ngl that always annoyed me, especially when cards were read that weren’t sent. Please send cards and maintain clarity.

On substance debate, I will hear any contention out, but remember, the second you stop extending an impact in summary/ff its gone on my flow, similarly as soon as you stop responding to the oppositions links, impacts, whatever, as long as they extend it they win it. This flows the other way too, my bar for a sufficient extension is pretty low. I like the debate to focus on clash, intricate/detailed weighing is the best way to win my ballot. Personally I ran many extinction impacts but also love the sense of reality that comes with s-risks and structural violence impacts. You should write your ballot for me, tell me exactly where to vote and why 'X' weighing on 'Y' argument means you specifically win the round. Some thoughts I have about regular substance debates:

• When it comes to turns, the only way I vote on it is explained proof that your link is better than theirs

• Impact turns/DA's in rebuttal are pretty underutilized and also good, creativity/internal links make the debate interesting (another step towards the 30)

• Do not leave anything up for intervention - If you have mitigation on your case but are winning the weighing debate or vice versa, explain in speech why you should be winning the debate as a whole, i.e. why is the mitigation more important or why is the weighing more important.

• I think it's sometimes strategic for teams to concede what they are clearly losing instead of bluffing their way out of it - it makes comparisons between arguments a lot easier and clearly delineates the flow a lot better. No one is falling for your rhetoric so just save it.

• Definition debate, solvency args, empirics might be boring but they are a really good technical way to get my ballot

• Confidence is key in cross and i'm going to default to binding cross unless you tell me why its better to be non-binding

• 15 seconds grace, but if its every speech i'm gonna stop listening and flowing after the speech time ends

Also none of the following matters for MS or for Novice/JV, i'm gonna draw a hard line here, if you aren’t in Varsity, running theory, K, tricks etc is a real stretch, at that point i'm going to say go to Varsity if you want to do that, don't be THAT team.

Theory: Theory is apriori but I'll vote for X comes first arguments (even substance). I think full text disclosure is good, paraphrasing is bad, and I’m neutral towards open source. I won’t hack for anything, however. The shell needs to be extended in every speech, but don't read the shell word for word (only the interp). Weigh the net benefit against the standards, there's almost no weighing in theory debates and it makes them hard to evaluate. That includes Meta theory: Meta theory comes before theory naturally but there needs to be a basic warrant why in the speech. Friv theory is fine, do what you need to win. I don’t have any preconceived notions nor any ‘higher thresholds’ for any stupid theory arguments - debate is a game so I’ll evaluate it like any other (However simple arguments are easier to understand and naturally require less explanation). Education and Fairness aren't voters until you tell me why. Can be as simple as "only portable skill of debate" or "sways the evaluation of the ballot"

K: My thoughts on the K. Your K needs a link, impact, an alt, and usually, a role of the ballot. Even if you lose the link, if you win the ROTB you can win the round pretty easily by making a lot of claims about attempting to link into the ROTB or you're the only risk of linking into the ROTB. Explain your jargon-y high theory phil/k arguments, im probably not familiar with it and cross is a good time to explain it since I'll be listening in. I can't vote for what I don't know (but I'm familiar with common K args like cap, security, etc). This includes the nuanced arguments of basic philosophers like Kant (I don’t know what a ‘categorical imperative’ is.

Tricks: They're really funny and I love running them. Go ahead and read them. However, Most tricks that deny the resolution on a truth level need a truth testing framework along with them or I won't vote on them. Always send docs and delineate the tricks within the docs, if its a bunch of text in a block I won't flow.

I am a freshman at Lakeland High School. This is my first time judging, but I've been debating at the High school Level.

I am a flow judge- I can handle debate terminology well and I don't mind fast speaking.

I will be keeping count of cross and prep time but make sure to time yourselves during any other speeches.

I like weighing on Debate rounds. Make sure that the points are clear and concise, and that the impact is emphasized. If you want to emphasize a point, make sure to mention it in your summary and final focus.

Make real world connections, showing the impact of your points and why I should vote for your side. Don't forget to add in lots of statistics, to emphasize impact.

Lastly, make sure to be civil during the debate and respectful to opponents during the round. It's important to make this an enjoyable experience for all.

Looking forward to judging the round.

I am a parent judge. Please speak slowly, be respectful of your opponents, time yourselves and do not get angry in the cross-fire round!

Have fun!

Parent judge, have judged few rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

I'm a first-time tournament judge this year who is debating this year in high school. I'm okay with relatively quick speech but not so fast so that I can't make out the important points. Emphasize your weighings and explain them in detail so that I can understand why your case matters more. Please be respectful of everyone involved in the debate.

I am an observant judge who prioritizes strategic and smart attacks and speeches rather than rushed and flawed ones.

Confidence is key.

Make sure to stand strong during crossfires.

Best team takes the victory.

I'm a first-year debater in high school, and I have debated this topic previously.

In terms of judging, I vote based on impact and how persuasive you are throughout the debate.

Please be respectful to your fellow opponents.

In terms of speaking, I don't mind if you speak fast but please make sure to thoroughly articulate your points.

Good luck everyon3

I am currently a JV PF Debater for Lakeland.

A little bit about me as a judge:

- I'm a flow judge, meaning that I can handle speed and understand debate theory and terminology.

- I listen but don't flow crossfire or use cross in my final considerations. This means that you should reference what happened in cross in your following speech otherwise I can't use it.

- Offtime roadmaps and signposting are greatly helpful. I don't record it in my flow but it helps me know what direction you'll be going with your points and what to expect next.

- You should always try to extend your arguments throughout your case as the debate progresses, but don't forget to effectively attack the opponent's arguments. Also, don't be afraid to collapse if needed.

- I'm big on framework and weighing. They tell your judge how to view the argument and directly compare the arguments presented, respectively. If no framework is introduced, I will default to utilitarianism.

- I always expect everyone to be respectful, mean or personal attacks are not allowed.

Lay judge, have judged many rounds. Speak at reasonable pace ie not too fast, please be clear on our main points and impact weighing.

hi! i'm a freshman and a first year debater.

it's okay to speak quickly, but please make sure to speak clearly and emphasize your main points and IMPACTS so i can write them down

have fun!

Thank you for your participation in this debate which will help you in developing your communication and leadership skills. I am a parent judge from California. Looking forward to seeing your presentations and arguments. Please speak slowly, be timely, be professional and respectful of your opponents during the cross-fire round! After the debate I will send written feedback to improve your skills. Thank you.

Have fun!

Hello! I am so glad that you're here!

I competed in some combination of congress, PF, parli, and extemp for 8 years. I appreciate line-by-line rebuttals, and I will take note if you drop subpoint rebuttals, so don't just carry taglines and unwarranted rebuttals. I don't usually flow cross but I will take note if something particularly important occurs. Since I don't typically flow cross, if you want to make sure that I count a concession, omission, or other notable point during cross towards your side, you should incorporate it into your speeches and weigh. Debate is an opportunity to employ logic and reasoning, not just repetition and intuition. Make your evidence make sense- it won't do that for you. PF speaking times are not optimal for discussing critical theory but I'm willing to evaluate theory if you have a strong grasp on what you're talking about. If you run a K, please don't assume that it will automatically win you the round- really think deeply about what you're trying to accomplish. Often a K is just a framework or an argument, so think about the intended outcome of your approach. Similarly, I am comfortable with PF cases that prioritize non-traditional values or ethical principles. There are always many good ways to analyze a resolution.

I highly value strong and unique speakers. I will evaluate speaking style in your points, and I do not preference cookie cutter speaking styles. Creative and dynamic speakers are often more convincing, so use this to your advantage. I can also see through convincing speaking styles and gesticulation to evaluate the content, so you need to be strong in both.

You should provide a weighing mechanism and framework, and this should be carried through the round. If you want to win, please don't forget to tell me how to evaluate the round. If your opponent offers a weighing mechanism and you provide no reason for me to doubt its validity, that will be the the way that I evaluate the round. If neither team tells me how to evaluate the round, I will run down my flow for dropped arguments, then evaluate winners in clash, then look at the strength of the original arguments.

Brief roadmaps are okay if necessary but should either be at the beginning of your speech (after time has started) or no more than 5 seconds off time. I will keep time, but please keep your own time so that I don't have to interrupt you. I also understand the need to call for cards, but it should be within reason. If your opponent asks for a card and it is revealed that your framing was blatantly misleading or the evidence just does not exist, that will reflect very negatively on your speaker points and potentially my overall ballot. Be honest! It doesn't serve you to lie.

Most importantly- I'm excited that you've chosen to participate in debate. It is non-negotiable to me that you are reasonably courteous to one another and take seriously the opportunity and responsibility to discuss issues that impact real people every day.

Hi, I'm a freshman in highschool and I'm in my first year of debate and I'm excited to judge!

Please remember to speak clearly so I can take effective notes and be a good sport to your opponents.

Good luck!

Greetings, my name is Sagar. I have had the pleasure of judging debates for quite some time now, and this marks my second year doing so. While I don't have any particular preferences, I kindly request that you keep track of your own preparation time. Unless there is a valid reason why you cannot do so, please ensure that you time yourself. Additionally, I expect all participants to display respect at all times. While I do not mind if you collapse your arguments, I will primarily consider the impact of each argument. For example, an argument that states "10 million lives will be lost" holds greater significance than one that claims "many people will be harmed." Lastly, I prefer that you provide an Off-time roadmap to introduce your cases. This will assist me in focusing on specific details. Also, I will cut you off if you go over time by more than 10 seconds. If you go over time you're allowed to finish your sentence but you're not allowed to add on. In addition during Crossfire when time runs out, Cross ends. I will announce when the crossfire ends if there is a lot of back and forth. Please state your name before speaking.

I am a parent. Please speak clearly and slowly and avoid technical jargon. I value sound logic and reasoning. I don't value disrespectful language or tune. Please DO NOT bring up new points in the 2nd Rebuttal.

I do not prefer too much spreading so much so that the participant is having hard time breathing. Please keep the talking speed such that I can follow and take some notes while you are speaking.